John Meredith, IV v. Justin Andrew


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999187260-2] Originating case number: 5:12-hc-02198-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000187810].. [13-7306]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-7306 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/07/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7306 JOHN FRANKLIN MEREDITH, IV, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-hc-02198-D) Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 7, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Franklin Meredith, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-7306 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/07/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: John Franklin Meredith, IV, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. Meredith relies on the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) to challenge his career offender designation, but we have “not extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their sentence.” United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction over Meredith’s petition. Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). We therefore modify its order to reflect a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the dismissal as modified. We grant Meredith leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?